Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] The Myths of Innovation



c. Scott Berkun (2007) in "The Myths of Innovation,"

might yield some information on the factors responsible for the
pathologically slow diffusion of innovation in higher education.

In addition, some physics education researchers are now pursuing
studies of the slow progress of educational reform. For example,
Henderson & Dancy (2006a,b) are interviewing faculty to determine
their attitudes toward innovations in physics education and the
(usually minimal) extent to which faculty have incorporated such
innovations into their own classroom practice.


The problem of promoting educational reform is probably more difficult than
promoting other types of innovation. New inventions always run into
obstacles, but I think education has some severe structural problems with
instituting real reform.

1. In pre-college education the pendulum has swung back and forth a number
of times. Teachers are used to the fact that every new administrator comes
up with "new & revolutionary" methods that are supposed to solve the
educational problems. But this has happened so many times that real reform
now has to overcome the "cry wolf" syndrome. Teachers have learned to lie
low and ignore what is going on, with the confident experience that it all
blows over.

2. A number of teachers who are otherwise very intelligent, have said that
they don't believe in educational research. I have heard this said in not
uncertain terms by non scientists, but also expressed by science teachers.
Essentially they do not believe that it is possible to come up with strong
evidence that certain types of things work. I can understand this from the
point of view of the humanities, because the research there is a lot more
vague. It is also a very strong opinion among mathematicians, who prefer
logical arguments to physical evidence.

3. A lot of the research is reported in obscure journals and the evidence
seldom gets out to the consumers (teachers). Very few teachers have access
to the necessary evidence. In the case of physics only some teachers get
The Physics Teacher, and only a small fraction read AJP or JRST.

4. The strong evidence presented in the journals is only a fraction of the
articles, and most of the surrounding articles do little to enhance
education. Indeed most of the surrounding articles lull one into the sense
that everything is all right, and that all we need to do is more of the
same.

5. There is very weak linkage between the product and the producer. The
rewards are handed out for other factors, and superior teachers who use the
research are seldom rewarded well for their efforts. In the case of
universities $$$$ brought in by research is the paramount value. In the
case of pre-college pleasing the students is often more important, or
getting them through the immediate hurdle of high stakes tests. The high
stakes testing actually acts as a huge force against reform. In both cases
the decision to hire someone is based usually on other factors rather than
on the ability to teach at a higher level.

6. One of the most important factors is that research based teaching
requires changing the way in which the teacher reacts and often thinks about
the classroom and the students. This is an extremely large barrier, and
usually can not be overcome by just telling them to do it better, or even
telling them how it should be done. It requires intensive training in new
methods. A few rare individuals can recognize what is going on, and change
themselves, but most can not.

7. The consumers of education have been so indoctrinated in what often
constitutes teaching that they can not recognize that they are actually
learning more in an interactive engagement class. Often the value is
perceived as being the number of "facts" learned, and the ability to get to
the next higher level. Getting into Harvard, TX A&M, ... is valued above an
education which will equip them to go on and really achieve more. So
student complaints act as a brake on progress.

8. Faculty outside of a department which implements reform are also a
problem. They have been known to call the reformers unprofessional, and
otherwise poison students against reform.

9. There is a tendency in education to look for a "quick fix". While there
are certainly problems which can be solved quickly, education is not one of
them.

Reform requires a complete paradigm shift on the part of a large number of
people. These sorts of things do happen when the value of the change is
evident. In the case of education, it is much more difficult to establish
the value of the changes. The fact that one can demonstrate far transfer or
long retention does not seem to influence the people who believe that
maximum fact transfer is more important.

The slowness of change has been demonstrated repeatedly. The clear striking
evidence that antiseptics dramatically reduced mortality had little
influence on many traditional doctors. They had to retire, and the younger
ones had to take over. We can demonstrate a factor of 3 greater learning
using the Hake survey, but since most educators really have not idea how
much gain is typically achieved in their classes, this has little weight.

I have had to sit through speakers and sales people spouting drivel, while
others drank it in and took it seriously. I have been called obstructionist
for asking for "real" evidence, and others thought that "it stands to
reason" is good enough. As I recall Feynman experiences this when he was on
the committee reviewing text books. He wrote about it. Teachers are
supposed to be dealing with reasoning, yet they do not apply it to simple
things like "will electronic whiteboards improve student understanding" and
is the cost of the innovation reasonable?

At my school one teacher has convinced a number of people that using
appropriately colored paper for tests and exams will help students. This is
a theory put forward by Irlen, but if one reads the papers, the evidence is
slim at best. It is not taken seriously by the LD professionals. Now, one
may admit that this innovation may be useful. However, if you look at the
history of this idea, it was claimed to cure a large number of problems
including dyslexia and ADD. Now however the buzz word is that it cures
scotopic sensitivity. It is another example of something that is pushed to
the exclusion of other more useful programs. One of the more interesting
papers showed that the colors had little effect unless they were combined
with a program to improve reading comprehension. But the colors are cheap
and an extra program is not so they go for the cheap innovation that does
little.

I realize that I am preaching to the choir. But the same difficulties exist
in changing teaching as exist in changing student understanding of NTNs
laws. Both need a large paradigm shift. And both take time and energy to
effect.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX